The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes, and repented his mistake.

Each of the crimes of this case committed by the defendant in a state of alcohol.

The degree of injury suffered by the injured party is relatively minor, and the degree of assault to the injured party is not an important part of the degree of assault.

When the defendant is punished at once and is released from the prison, he/she is willing not to repeat the crime by restraint of drinking.

These circumstances can be considered as a factor favorable to the sentencing of the defendant.

However, the above circumstances seems to have fully taken into account all the facts alleged by the Defendant in the original trial or the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant.

In light of such circumstances and various circumstances as indicated in the “decision of Pronouncement” column of the lower judgment, especially the Defendant was punished more than 30 times for violent crimes, and the Defendant again committed each of the instant offenses, such as assaulting or injuring a taxi driver who is in operation during the period of the same repeated offense, breathly under the influence of alcohol and obstructing another person’s business, and assaulting a person without suspicion, etc., the Defendant did not receive a letter from victims, and other factors such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, relationship with victims, motive for the crime, and sentencing guidelines determined by the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is appropriate, and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions in the trial. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s sentence is unfair because the Defendant’s punishment is too excessive.

We do not accept the above arguments of the defendant.

3. Conclusion